Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement for details.

3.
No standard for the most basic design questions
Which region of the screen is easiest to interact with?
How accurate can we expect the users’ input to be?
How large should gaze targets be? …
It depends…

5.
We asked 5 expert users…
• Tracking quality varies during a day
• Recalibrate eye tracker 3 – 10 times per day
Reasons:
• Change in lighting
• Bumping against tracker
• Head movement or repositioning of user
• Fail to interact with a gaze application several
times per week or even per day
• Most use it inside, but would like to use it
outside or in the car

25.
Assess different screen regions
Compute precision and
accuracy for different parts
of the screen. Place (smaller)
gaze elements where
tracking is best.

26.
Implications for Design
• Targets should be slightly larger in height than width
• 1.9 × 2.35 𝑐𝑚 allow robust interaction for 75% of users
• 3.28 × 3.78 𝑐𝑚 if data is not filtered
• Avoid placing elements on the bottom or right edge of screen
• Use weighted average filter with saccade detection and outlier
correction
See paper for more values

27.
Adaptive gaze applications
One design fits all is not sufficient
• Large variations in accuracy and
precision
• Complex interplay of many factors,
hard to predict
• Interface should adapt to changes